*Official* South Africa in England Thread

[marc71178]

When he wasn't a regular in the side, he wasn't performing.

Since he's been put down as a first choice, his performances are getting better and better.

 

[Craig]

Well I hope he starts performing for England's sake.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

But you have to acknowledge that he failed during the years. I believe he is a substandard cricketer, nothing has done too change that. As I said you and me are just going to have to agree to disagree on this subject. I havent seen much of this Test, so good on him if he is bowling well.

I think he is messed up that he was the 'new-Botham' by the media.

Flintoff is performing now and that's that. I really don't care that he hasn't performed for x amount of years before - that's the past. Now he seems to be finding himself at international level, which is great for the future of English cricket. He's starting to score runs and is bowling very well, albeit without much luck.

 

[Tim]

Well England fall over for 209 & South Africa now lead the series 2-1.

Poor performance to say the least considering South Africa gifted them such a great start on Day One.

Looking at Kirtley, I think he'll do better as he gains experience & maybe the same with Kabir Ali although to be honest he's no more than a medium pacer at best and he'll need to work on line & length.

 

[Eclipse]

Flintoff is performing now and that's that. I really don't care that he hasn't performed for x amount of years before - that's the past. Now he seems to be finding himself at international level, which is great for the future of English cricket. He's starting to score runs and is bowling very well, albeit without much luck.

Exactly I agree I dont know what Craig is on Flintoff may have had some failures in the past but he is a vital member of the team now.

 

[V Reddy]

Looking at Kirtley, I think he'll do better as he gains experience & maybe the same with Kabir Ali although to be honest he's no more than a medium pacer at best and he'll need to work on line & length.

Both bowl at the same pace :rolleyes: .

 

[luckyeddie]

Mercifully, I had a few days away (had to go down to Bristol to bring the duck back home) and missed all of the last two days other than a few 'highlights'.

I'm not going to bore you with the sordid details, but what I got up to was far more enjoyable than watching England v South Africa.

<quack> pulling out your own fingernails with red-hot pincers was more enjoyable than England v South Africa.

I've no solution. The problem is the bowling - and we've now tried them all. They're all rubbish, we know that. But can we at least have different kinds of rubbish in the side just for a bit of variation?

 

[Rik]

Well done to Freddie, he's started to prove himself with the bat, weather he keeps it up I have doubts. As for his bowling, I still do not feel he will become anything more than useful at Test level, he's bowling straight and with pace yes, but from what I have seen there is a reason why he's not getting many wickets, it's because there is never any variation. He suffers from the same problem as Alan Mullally did at International level...just too much the same. Needless to say though 2 50s and 4 wickets is a good performance.

 

[Rik]

Worst England display I have seen in a long, long time.

I'll go into detail when I don't have CC1 reports to write...

Come back Harmy, we need you!

I doubt Harmison would help. Personally I feel Bicknell and Kabir Ali did a really good job having to carry a knackered Anderson and a rather overwhelmed (well wouldn't you be if you had just won your team the match only 2 days before?) Kirtley. I felt they did their jobs well and if the batsmen had not collapsed twice then we would be singing their praises. I'm not sure Harmison would have done much better considering the mauling the SA batsmen have given him lately...

 

[Rik]

Got to say I've been impressed by Billy Bowden and Simon Taufel. Although Billy seems to give a lot of LBWs not out which seem plumb when you see the Hawkeye replay, if your not sure then give the batsman the benefit of the doubt, and that's what he does. He's not afraid to say "I'm not sure" and not give it. That's an admirable quality when you see some of the shockers given in the last few years.

Hmmmm, I'm still going to say they had a good match although firing Nass out like that when there was enough doubt that he was outside the line (and prooved to be) wasn't really a plus point. My 1st reaction when seeing it full time was it wouldn't have even hit the stumps, well it might have but it was still outside the line. Also Stewart's catch behind...I wasn't convinced either, although he was eventually found to have edged it, there was enough doubt that he had in fact hit the ball in the 1st place and that he might have hit the ground afterwards if there was was a sound. Watching it as it happened, I didn't hear a thing and the sound we hear is supposed to be from mics in the stumps just behind the batsmen. If they have to turn up the volume to hear a noise and the umpire is 22 yards+ down the pitch, how can he be so sure? Don't give it out unless you are sure...

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

If they have to turn up the volume to hear a noise and the umpire is 22 yards+ down the pitch, how can he be so sure? Don't give it out unless you are sure...

Yes, but it turned out to be the right decision, so you really have no grounds to complain about it.

 

[Mr. P]

Bow down to the almighty kallis, his 6 for 54 quite possible could be the best bowling EVER.

 

[Rik]

Yes, but it turned out to be the right decision, so you really have no grounds to complain about it.

I do in the way that it was so quiet I'm not sure the batsman even heard it. And if you can't hear a nick, then don't give it. The umpire could not have been sure therefor he should not have given it out. If the batsman had not hit it then advantage SA due to a mistake, which is not what you want.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Bow down to the almighty kallis, his 6 for 54 quite possible could be the best bowling EVER.

Clearly you have been watching cricket for only a very short space of time. :P

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

I do in the way that it was so quiet I'm not sure the batsman even heard it. And if you can't hear a nick, then don't give it. The umpire could not have been sure therefor he should not have given it out. If the batsman had not hit it then advantage SA due to a mistake, which is not what you want.

But the fact is that he DID hit it. If it were the other way around, then you're argument would be more valid. Whilst it does hold water, it really isn't valid due to the fact that it was the correct decision.

 

[Mr. P]

Clearly you have been watching cricket for only a very short space of time. :P

Or I could just be being sarcastic.

Either one.

 

[Rik]

But the fact is that he DID hit it. If it were the other way around, then you're argument would be more valid. Whilst it does hold water, it really isn't valid due to the fact that it was the correct decision.

I am not disputing that he got it right, what I am disputing weather he could have got it right if Stewart had not hit it. Even though Stewart edged the ball and was rightly given out, Taufel could not have known weather he was definately out or not, so, as appears in the rules, he should not have been given out.

 

[marc71178]

Thing is though Rik, Stewart's reaction (turning to watch the ball) suggests to me that he knew he hit it.

 

[marc71178]

I doubt Harmison would help. Personally I feel Bicknell and Kabir Ali did a really good job having to carry a knackered Anderson and a rather overwhelmed (well wouldn't you be if you had just won your team the match only 2 days before?) Kirtley.

If Kabir was carrying those 2, how come Kirtley bowled more overs than him, and Anderson only a couple fewer?

Also, Freddy bowled a lot more than him, and was, yet again, our most impressive seamer.

He did OK on his debut, but it definitely wasn't a great debut, as proven by the "5th" seamer bowling a lot more than him.

 

[Rik]

If Kabir was carrying those 2, how come Kirtley bowled more overs than him, and Anderson only a couple fewer?

Also, Freddy bowled a lot more than him, and was, yet again, our most impressive seamer.

He did OK on his debut, but it definitely wasn't a great debut, as proven by the "5th" seamer bowling a lot more than him.

I'd say he was the 5th seamer Marc...

He wasn't at his best but he still troubled the batsmen and created more chances than the bowler he replaced...